HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 5807 of 2025 Court No. - 72 HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of criminal case as well as charge sheet dated 16.07.2024 and cognizance order dated 09.09.2024 passed in Criminal Case No.21038 of 2024, (State versus Naseema Bano and others), arising out of Case Crime No.285 of 2024, under Sections 323, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Ramkola, District Kushinagar, pending in the court of CJM Kushinagar. 3. Counsel for the applicants submits that both the parties have lodged FIR against each other and received injury on account of property dispute and civil suit is pending between them. FIR lodged by applicants against the opposite party no.2 is pending before the trial court in which charge sheet has been submitted. He next submitted that the instant FIR was lodged after about one month in counterblast of the FIR lodged by the applicants against the opposite party no.2. The medical examination report is disclosed that injuries are simple in nature and not supporting the prosecution case. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission raised by the counsel for the applicants and submitted that the submissions raised by the counsel for the applicants are disputed question of facts which cannot be examined, at this stage. Moreover, it is admitted case that both the parties have lodged FIR against each other and received injuries. Injuries are supporting the prosecution case, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicants. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sandeep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Naseema Bano And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. The grounds taken in the application reveal that many of them relate to disputed question of fact. This Court is of the view that it is well settled that the appreciation of evidence is a function of the trial court. This Court in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS cannot assume such jurisdiction and put an end to the process of trial provided under the law. It is also settled by the Apex Court in catena of judgments that the impugned criminal proceeding against the applicants is abuse of the process of the Court and is liable to be quashed by this Court. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS at pre-trial stage should not be used in a routine manner but it has to be used sparingly, only in such an appropriate cases, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceedings or where allegations made in First Information Report or charge-sheet and the materials relied in support of same, on taking their face value and accepting in their entirety do not disclose the commission of any offence against the accused. The disputed questions of facts and defence of the accused cannot be taken into consideration at this pre-trial stage. 6. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case, at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. The I.O. has collected material evidence to prosecute the applicants in the present case. The learned Magistrate has rightly summoned the applicants in the aforesaid case. Moreover, the injury report and the statement of the witnesses are supporting the prosecution case. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 7. In view of the above, in the light of judgment of the Apex Court in the matters of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, Manik B. Vs. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 642, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283,, no ground for quashing the proceedings of the aforesaid case, is made out which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 528 BNSS. 8. The present application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 18, 2025 I.A.Siddiqui NA528 No. 5807 of 2025 2 (Deepak Verma,J.) Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad